theophiles.org - Uproar in D.C. as Same-Sex Marriage Gains

Uproar in D.C. as Same-Sex Marriage Gains

Written by holmegm

Saturday, 09 May 2009 12:37

From The Washington Post:

The D.C. Council overwhelmingly approved a bill yesterday to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, in a vote that followed a sharp exchange between an openly gay member and a civil rights champion and set off shouts of reproach from local ministers.
The council passed the measure by a vote of 12 to 1. During the debate, council member David A. Catania (I-At Large) accused Marion Barry (D-Ward 8), who cast the dissenting vote, of having taken a "bigoted" position.
After the vote, enraged African American ministers stormed the hallway outside the council chambers and vowed that they will work to oust the members who supported the bill, which was sponsored by Phil Mendelson (D-At Large). They caused such an uproar that security officers and D.C. police were called in to clear the hallway.

Comments

holmegm

|2009-05-09 13:52:34

So ... are these enraged African American ministers "hate preachers"?

[crickets, crickets ...]

PinocchiosFurniture - "Hate Preachers"?

|2009-05-09 21:08:55

"So ... are these enraged African American ministers "hate preachers"?

They may very well be...

But what I find even more intriguing is that they appear even moreso to be anti-democratic.

holmegm - re: "Hate Preachers"?

|2009-05-10 08:02:48

PinocchiosFurniture wrote:

They may very well be...

Only may?

What would clinch the deal on that for you?

holmegm

|2009-05-12 15:04:21

Would they be "hate preachers" if they were white Southern Baptists?

laika

|2009-05-09 21:18:15

Quote:

Civic activist Philip Pannell, who is openly gay and lives in Ward 8, called Barry's remarks offensive. "He of all people, coming out of the civil rights movement, should understand the need to fight for the rights of all minorities to be protected," Pannell said.

meanwhile, Mr. Pannell has exactly the same right to marry as Marion Barry - or me, or you. we all have the right to marry.

Mr. Pannell wants a special right, above and beyond the right that we all enjoy equally, to call some other household arrangement a "marriage." that bit of silliness has nothing whatsoever in common with the civil rights that black Americans had to struggle to receive, and Mr. Barry and the pastors are absolutely right to resent any such comparisons.

WebbedFeetOfClay - just for the sake of argument (or maybe not)

|2009-05-09 22:11:28

There was a time when the normative legal household arrangement for marriage in much of this country hinged on a man and a woman of the same race. The aforementioned civil rights movement eliminated laws like that precisely to adjust the normative understanding of household arrangements for marriage. In that capacity there are some substantive similarities between the two situations. Of course they aren't the same, but it's not apples and oranges, it just so happens that many of the individuals who believed race was an unfair and inappropriate criterion for marriage don't believe that gender/sex is an inappropriate criterion.
(part of the crux being that the civil rights movement wasn't fundamentally about the rights of minorities in general it was a fight against racial and ethnic discrimination, not gender/sexuality discrimination, and plenty of folks who were part of it weren't necessarily big women's libbers either. his overgeneralization seems to cause a misunderstanding)

emperorbma

|2009-05-12 13:12:52

There is a comparison, but is it really apt?

At the face, there are similarities...
1. A "Scriptural" objection:
Anti-miscegenation invokes the Torah laws against the Israelites' intermarrying with the Canaanites.
"traditional marriage" invokes the Torah laws against homosexual acts.

2. A biological/naturalistic objection:
Anti-miscegenation invokes the eugenic claim of "lesser races."
"traditional marriage" invokes the biological imperative of reproduction.

3. A "traditional" objection:
Anti-miscegenation claimed this was the way it always was.
"traditional marriage" also claims that this is the way it always was.

Nevertheless, on deeper analysis the criticisms are quite substantially different.

The Scriptural argument of the former is indirect (WASPs are Jewish? Philistines were black?), whereas it is quite direct for the latter ("man shall not lie with a man...") and has reinforcement in the New Testament and from the dearth of Biblical alternatives to heterosexual marriage (monogamous or polygamous). Oddly enough, anti-miscegenation has *only* an Old Testament case, and a rather contrived one, by comparison.

The natural argument of the former is, upon deeper analysis, a genetically unsuitable strategem (hybrid vigor is well documented) whereas the natural argument of the latter is a sine qua non of human reproduction (i.e. basic "birds and the bees").

Finally, the claim that it is "the way it always was" is quite adequately documented to be false in the case of anti-miscegenation. Endogamy tended to be a tribal thing at best. Conversely, if "male-female sexuality" wasn't the historical norm there would be no human race, period.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-05-12 21:30:15

sorry emperor
a) this is not scriptural argument it's a secular legal one, and that's the only topic being responded to by me in laika's post
b) your "that's the way it always was" point is demonstrably false. and the latter point is non-sequitor as you switch from an argument of whether or not it happened to an argument of wheter or not it was the norm and those are fundamentally different claims to be raised.

on a legal/ rhetorical level it's perfectly apt to say that they are both debates on what criteria are licit for determining a legitimate marriage. of course people seem to disagree.

emperorbma

|2009-05-13 01:27:23

Quote:

a) this is not scriptural argument it's a secular legal one, and that's the only topic being responded to by me in laika's post

It was mentioned merely in the interests of being thorough... (and I have a bad habit of overdoing that)

Quote:

b) your "that's the way it always was" point is demonstrably false. and the latter point is non-sequitor as you switch from an argument of whether or not it happened to an argument of wheter or not it was the norm and those are fundamentally different claims to be raised.

In that case, the debate revolves around whether there existed a culture in which homosexual marriage was considered normative. I am reasonably certain that there was not, but in any case I would note my emphasis of the word marriage. I would not likely consider short-sighted modernistic connections that associate entirely different cultural entities, such as Greek pederasty, with the modern concept of "homosexual marriage" as that sort of argument is an anachronism.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-05-14 00:31:05

it's still not a question of whether or not it's normative. it's a question of whether or not it's accepted. those a very different conditions. homosexuals are now and have always been a minority, that's not really seriously up for debate, it's a question of the acceptance of that status.

of course that would be short sighted. pedarasty wasn't a contractual arrangement, ora household arrangement. But the facts remain pretty clear that men and women had marriage contracts with other men and women respectively. (Especially in large periods of the whole greco-roman thang marriage was treated as...wait for it... contract law (it's becoming my new buzz word) so there's no real obstacle toward homosexual marriage (especially between men, between women could be a bit trickier depending)

emperorbma

|2009-05-14 12:08:40

Quote:

it's a question of the acceptance of that status

Given that anyone who is in their right mind and hasn't been under a rock for their entire life would recognize that homosexual inclinations and behaviors do exist, I must conclude that what you mean is that what is at debate here is whether these are actually valid marital pairings. To answer that concern, we would need to actually ascertain what marriage is.

It is quite evident that most ancient societies, especially the Roman law which bears heavily into this discussion, had very secular civic provisions for marriage. Under these, marriage was usually ascertained as a "contractual agreement," but not a contract between the two being married! Rather, it was an agreement between the parents and usually had political overtones. The story, Romeo and Juliet, (1600s) is actually an example of the dying gasps of that sentiment which finally expired with the end of the Victorian age (early to mid 1900s). (... and IMNSHO, good riddance...) Contemporary considerations would not consider the parents to actually be the contract owners and, for that reason, I seriously doubt that antiquarian jurisprudence can really have any direct bearing on the present rationale of what marriage constitutes.

So, as to what marriage is defined as, it roughly falls into three major categories or some combination thereof:
1. Contract between two loving partners. (eros/emotional motive)
2. A facilitation of the biological process of reproduction and its concurrent needs. (biological motive)
3. A union into "one flesh" before God. (theological motive)

The state, as an entity, is largely interested in only the second aspect due to the necessity of progeny in its continued existence. Therefore, there is a vested interest, albeit minor, in not facilitating homosexual unions that is present in the state's considerations. It could care less about the emotions of its citizens and it usually tries to avoid meddling in religion considering the bad consequences that can result in.

Those advocates who object to homosexual unions tend to be most interested in aspects 2 and 3, although they may not exclude aspect 1 entirely. Those who are proponents of homosexual unions, on the other hand, tend to rely solely on the first criterion. (one could make a case that "homosexual marriage" supporters may include aspect 2, but while the homosexuals may fulfill their innate biological desires according to it, they are not fulfilling its objectives...)

(As an aside, if I have to characterize my own perspective on the matter, it is as follows criterion 3 (Divine Law) is highest priority, criterion 1 (love of a couple) is secondary priority, criterion 2 (biological imperative) is last, being an important but ancillary issue... that is why I tend to eschew the biological arguments in favor of "traditional marriage" if at all possible.)

Since the other two aspects are largely neglected by "homosexual marriage" activists, they have failed to consider the perfectly valid rationales for the other two criteria. Nevertheless, in terms of objections, I think that only the theological argument provides a consistent and easily framed objection.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-05-14 12:48:15

sorry again, but no.

first regarding roman law. It really depends on the period of time and the individuals whether it was parental or personal, both existed. an interesting little nuance but an important one to keep in mind.

The state has no vested interest in 2. (at least this state). progeny don't play into marriage contracts in this country until they exist. The government is perfectly happy with childless marriages and doesn't make that a condition at all. The government certainly can't make 3 a criterion of law in this country. Which leaves 1. By your own rubric the only condition left eligible for state consideration is contract between two 'loving' individuals.

This is not a discussion of sacramental marriage, but of legal marriage, Two dramatically distinct institutions.

emperorbma

|2009-05-14 16:52:31

Quote:

The state has no vested interest in 2. (at least this state). progeny don't play into marriage contracts in this country until they exist.

I think that you might have misunderstood me. I wasn't saying they were interested in the child, per se, as much as the "potential for a child to result."

Consider a situation when there is a dearth of children, such as in some contemporary European countries with liberal laws. (Check out the birth rates...) Should the government be unconcerned then? As I said, it is a minor "vested interest" but it really does exist.

At any rate, I am not defending the position merely presenting the rationale that I've been able to ascertain behind it.

Quote:

The government is perfectly happy with childless marriages and doesn't make that a condition at all.

This is a convenience of abundance. I certainly don't agree that biological reproduction is the sole motivator for marriage, but from the perspective of the state it is technically a self-preservation issue regardless of whether they acknowledge that fact. If 10% of the population that would otherwise be reproducing is not, then it is probably going to affect the birth rates.

I do know about "in vitro," which can offset the side-effects of non-reproduction marriages, but there's a second horn to the philosophical argument revolving around the idea that a mother and father are intrinsically superior to any other arrangement. Unlike with the other horn of the argument, I do concur with this sentiment. However, I wouldn't express my perspective in a legalistic manner.

Quote:

The government certainly can't make 3 a criterion of law in this country.

Implicitly, and now explicitly, granted...

Quote:

By your own rubric the only condition left eligible for state consideration is contract between two 'loving' individuals.

... and, with this, you see why I consider the civil aspect of marriage to be a lost cause already. That is also why I tend to take a position of "neither help nor hinder, don't intervene" on this issue in general.

I'm morally opposed on the basis of criterion 3 to considering such things marriage, but I see no genuinely justified rationale from criteria 1 or 2 by which to muster a legal and civic opposition to the sham masquerading as "marriage." The only arena in which I'm justified in defending my position is the theological one, and that is actually the only arena in which I do so.

laika

|2009-05-14 18:09:29

WFC wrote:

well, respectfully, it is apples and oranges. we can find variations on the marriage theme, like polygamy, or we can find changing legal definitions of marriage like your miscegenation example, and we can find legal restrictions like age or incest, but all of these involve relations between men and women and we expect the possibility of procreation to be at least implied in this arrangement called marriage.

a homosexual pairing is another arrangement altogether. if folks want to legalize or solemnize their same-sex arrangements, that's fine, but it's not a marriage, and it seems silly and disingenuous to pretend that these alternative arrangements fit any reasonably recognizable definition of a marriage.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-05-14 22:39:27

you've got me a bit confused. How is monogamy a lesser criterion in marriage than gender? You're still just disputing the criterion of gender while saying other criterion are legitimate. I'm not saying that acknowledging that criterion requires accepting it, but it's just a logical level of terminology that it seems you want to avoid. It seems absolutely absurd to be willing to call polygamy a variation on marriage and not same-sex marriage (or union if you still won't)

pointing out the commonalities between diverse variations doesn't mean that a something is not a variation if it doesn't share that commonality. (fuzzy sets etc.) you could make any set of groupings that included a same sex pair and excluded any one of the others, it just depends on which criterion you focus on. If it's a couple, polygamy is out. If it is union of people not already joined by blood, incest is out. If it is a union of people of the same race, 'miscegination' is out. If it's a union of consenting adults then we throw out the child brides scenario. this is all just choosing which criterion/criteria is/are not acceptable to change.
maybe we can compromise at apples and pears?

Entity - re:

|2009-05-14 23:02:20

WebbedFeetOfClay wrote:

It seems absolutely absurd to be willing to call polygamy a variation on marriage and not same-sex marriage (or union if you still won't)

If it's a couple, polygamy is out.

Isn't polygamy multiple couples with a member in common. I don't believe the wives are married to each other in typical polygyny or the husbands married to each other in typical polyandry. So, polygamy would be multiple marriages, not a marriage of three or more.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-05-15 06:48:00

but the idea of multiple concurrent 'marriages' presents a definitional difficulty in and of itself. It clearly can't be an equal partnering.

Entity

|2009-05-15 08:36:02

Is equal partnering part of the traditional definition of marriage?

emperorbma

|2009-05-15 09:17:46

As far as culture is concerned, we inherit our tradition of strict monogamy from Roman marital practices which forbade polygamy among its citizenry. The Bible, on the other hand, does permit polygamy (especially in the Old Testament), although there are some pretty clear hints in the subtext throughout Scripture that the arrangement is a non-ideal one.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-05-15 18:46:00

i was questioning that phrasing... what I mean is co-ownership, which of course isn't an always everywhere part of marriage (I don't really know what is) mine is yours yours is mine (and I am yours and you are mine to a lesser legal extent) that kind of coownership doesn't really fly in polygamy (or polyandry for that matter).

laika

|2009-05-14 23:51:54

WFC wrote:

you've got me a bit confused. How is monogamy a lesser criterion in marriage than gender? You're still just disputing the criterion of gender while saying other criterion are legitimate.

well, then, i apologize for my inability to make myself clear.

i'm operating from the assumption that reasonable people would agree that marriage - despite some restriction or variant we might be able to find - involves people of the opposite sex and generally implies the possibility of procreation.

and quite frankly, i don't understand or trust the psychology behind the drive to co-opt a perfectly well understood definition. it makes as much sense as insisting that my uncle is my sister.

with that, i cede the field to you, and i'll redouble my efforts to stay out of these kinds of conversations.

WebbedFeetOfClay - sorry

|2009-05-15 06:54:19

i think I'm doing a horrible job of saying what I mean to say. (which is probably why I should have kept more vigilant about my general rule of staying out of these kinds of conversations.)

I just don't think that the definition of marriage is "perfectly well understood" and I'm wary of the legal implications of such assumptions.

(I can also be a hopelessly semantic individual and am sorry for dragging you into that.)

anyway. time for work. field empty.

Entity - re: sorry

|2009-05-15 08:49:38

WebbedFeetOfClay wrote:

I just don't think that the definition of marriage is "perfectly well understood"

While I would agree with you that the definition of marriage is not perfectly well understood, throughout the changes that have allowed child marriage, sibling marriage, polygamous marriage, and forced marriages, the definition has never changed from marriage being between a man and a woman. The definition of planet may have changed over the years, but it never included telecommunications satellites. If you want to include those, you need a new word. If you want to have homosexual unions, you need a new word, because it isn't marriage.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-05-15 18:49:52

as I said to emperor, that definition has historically been a lot looser than you might like to admit. there is ancient precedence for same-sex marriage contracts. This is not saying you must approve of them, but it is saying that your disapproval has to be an ethical/ theological one, because the historical, "this is the way it's always been," argument just doesn't pass muster. (and that may have a big impact on how we understand the question legally)

laika - re: sorry

|2009-05-15 09:27:55

WFC wrote:

(I can also be a hopelessly semantic individual and am sorry for dragging you into that.)

no need to apologize, my friend. i never doubt that you're a kind-hearted person who means well - we simply disagree. we're apparently both starting from a rigid position and we just don't agree.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-05-15 18:51:26

as I may have said before, ethically I'm basically just throwing up my hands because I don't feel I understand or am spiritually equipped to publically address the issue. (legally, however, I'm pretty adamant.)

PinocchiosFurniture - re: Laika Confused

|2009-05-10 20:48:08

laika wrote:

Quote:

The vote was not about Mr Pannell's right to marry....or anyone else's for that matter.

It was a vote by DC Council to recognize the legal and legitimate performance of marriage between partners of the same sex in other jurisdictions.

emperorbma

|2009-05-11 13:08:46

So, translated, she wants her "special right" from some other jurisdiction to be recognized in the local one? How is this any different than what laika was saying?

PinocchiosFurniture - What 'Special Right'?

|2009-05-11 20:48:28

The jurisdictions which already legally recognize marriage between partners of the same sex do not recognize these 'rights' as something 'special', but rather as something universal.

And something universally entitled to anyone and everyone without restriction or regard to their sex.

Limiting marriage to only partners of the same sex is in reality the 'special right'...

--------------

At any rate, laika and emporerbma both seem to be confused on this point, and miss the larger issue altogether:

That DC Council simply recognized by a Super-Majority democratic vote...that what has already stood the legal and constitutional test elsewhere, should be recognized as valid in the Federal District.

Don't think DC law fails to recognize as valid a marriage between partners of the opposite sex which has been enacted in the jurisdictions that legally recognized marriage between partners of the same sex....so why should DC fail to recognize the legal marital union between partners of the same sex if DC so chooses?

Isn't that what 'democracy' is all about?

Or should 'democracy' also be a 'special right' available only to those with the right credentials and with membership in the special club?

laika

|2009-05-12 00:31:03

PinocchiosFurniture wrote:

And something universally entitled to anyone and everyone without restriction or regard to their sex.

but there is no restriction with regard to sex. adults in this country universally (to borrow your word) have the right to marriage.

for various reasons, some folks choose not to exercise the right to marry. and some folks choose alternative household arrangements that aren't universally recognized as marriages. respectfully, demanding that some arrangement not a marriage be recognized as a marriage is demanding special recognition.

Entity - re: What 'Special Right'?

|2009-05-12 09:23:43

PinocchiosFurniture wrote:

Should people be permitted to marry their siblings?

emperorbma

|2009-05-12 12:02:56

Somehow, I don't think you're getting laika's point either.

Quote:

And something universally entitled to anyone and everyone without restriction or regard to their sex.

Let me see if I can explain what laika is trying to say:
1. A gay man is just as free to marry a woman as a straight man is.
2. A lesbian woman is just as free to marry a man as a straight woman is.

Since there is absolutely no restriction on either of these, marriage is already universally permitted. Obviously, laika (and myself, also, for that matter) does not accept that marriage can even exist between two members of the same sex. He is in good company, since this is a majority viewpoint. The "special right" he refers to is that they are demanding that everyone accept their redefinition of marriage as valid.

Nevertheless, I am loath to say that neither minority nor majority would prevent someone from rationalizing an alternative position but there is no reason we have to allow someone to impinge upon our Christian rite just for their own desires. Perhaps you would do us the honor of explaining why homosexual unions must, logically, be considered marriage? I think, in the case of some of us, you'd need to find God Himself saying that they are to convince us otherwise.

Needless to say, just because someone has managed to convince the governments of a few states to go along with this doesn't make it a real marriage.

PerpetualAgnostic - My obnoxious urge

|2009-05-12 21:01:39

If I didn't have a family that would be embarassed, I'd really love to take the Mass. supreme judicial court's reasoning to the logical extreme, and sue for the right to form a polygomous, child-free marriage, just to show how silly the reasoning is.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-05-12 21:32:19

to be fair, I'm not entirely unconvinced that consensual (of age etc.) polygamy should be legal. I don't think it's particularly ethical but I really have a difficult time making a consistent legal argument as to why the government should be able to make that decision without being called out for overstepping its boundaries.

PinocchiosFurniture - re: re: What 'Special Right'?

|2009-05-15 19:21:26

Entity wrote:

[quote=PinocchiosFurniture]The jurisdictions which already legally recognize marriage between partners of the same sex do not recognize these 'rights' as something 'special', but rather as something universal.

And something universally entitled to anyone and everyone without restriction or regard to their sex.

Should people be permitted to marry their siblings?[/quote]

Entity wrote:

Should people be permitted to marry their siblings?[/quote]

---------------

Should people be permitted to marry their siblings?

Sure! Why not?

If I remember correctly this practice is already or still legal in some US states.

There are also no Scriptural prohibitions on marrying siblings.

After all, Sarah was not only Abraham's wife, she was also his sister!

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-05-16 06:03:45

Leviticus 18:9- "You shall not have intercourse with your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in your own household or born elsewhere."

Entity

|2009-05-16 09:20:41

After all, Sarah was not only Abraham's wife, she was also his sister!

Any one of the students of ancient history on here have thoughts on this? While a plain reading would have them as half-siblings, it seems that words for relatives were rather fluid at that time.

Also, Abraham was before Leviticus, so the prohibition would not have applied to him.

PinocchiosFurniture - Illogical

|2009-05-15 19:52:02

emperorbma wrote:

Somehow, I don't think you're getting laika's point either.

Quote:

And something universally entitled to anyone and everyone without restriction or regard to their sex.

First: there is NO Scriptural prohibition regarding homosexual marriage. If anyone claims there is, they do not know the Scripture.

Second: just because a 'majority' ascribe to a certain frame of thinking, (rightly or wrongly) should not be confused with the fact that such majority viewpoint is 'right', 'Godly', 'correct' or 'just'. After all, a few centuries ago, the majority felt it perfectly Godly, moral, right and just to enslave fellow humans. It was also the law of the land. Likewise, within the last century, women and wives held few if any rights...in or out of marriage...and the majority believed this was ok and supported thir subservient role in society. The majority could also support their immoral positions with Scriputre wrongly applied. Same thing here.

Third: Scripture does not define 'male' and 'female'. While its writers make some common observations about gender, the Scripture do not purport to be Biology textbooks covering all aspects of human and animal sexuality and gender.

"Gender" in humans is not as black and white as some would ignorantly believe. While the 'majority' of humans bear XX chromosomes for females and XY chomosomes for males...a myriad of other gender combinations occur in nature: XXXY, XXXX, XYXY, XYYY, and so forth occur.

Likewise, 'sexual identity' is also not cut and dry..black and white.

While the 'majority' fall into a male-female pattern, this is not the universal case. For example, hermaphrodites are born with both sets of sexual organs or varying degrees of both. Some identify as males depsite having predominantly female organs and some as females despite having predominantly male organs.

Homosexuality falls under similar catagories as does those who may be fully biologically one gender or the other, but identify as a member of the opposite sex.

Sexuality and Gender is not as black and white as some who ignorantly like to believe.

---------

"Marriage", according to the Scripture, is given as a sign of the Union between Christ and His Church...not necessarily as a sign between the union between a male and a female.

And while marriage in the Scripture is 'traditionally' spoken of as between a man and a woman, it does not follow that only biological females can be considered the "Bride of Christ"...nor that biologic males cannot be part of Christ's Spouse through the Church.

----------------
The proof is in the pudding.

Paul in Romans makes the point somewhere that if the heathen do what is good and right, then the heathen DO the will of God by their nature rather than their affiliation.

Does a heterosexual couple living together without the benefit of a legal 'marriage'....who stay togther for life and love each other as Christ loved the Church...live in sin?

Be careful...

Most state laws would consider that a valid 'marriage' occured even if there was no formal marriage ceremony or contract.

-------------

The bottom line remains: Those who disapprove of homosexual marriage have a right to their opinions, but they do NOT have a right to impinge upon rights who, before God, make a vow with their homosexual union before HIM, nor EXCLUDE such homosexuals from enjoying the rights they already share.

emporerbma's as well as laika's positions remain not only illogical, they remain Unscriptural as well.

'Marriage', heterosexual or homosexual, therefore, is an earthly temporal convenience with no Eternal significance...and nothing more.

So said Jesus Christ.

In heaven we are neither male nor female and do not marry, but instead are spirit to be joined to Jesus Christ as our spouse forever...regardless of gender.

emperorbma

|2009-05-16 14:24:45

Quote:

First: there is NO Scriptural prohibition regarding homosexual marriage. If anyone claims there is, they do not know the Scripture.

A perfectly valid criticism, considering that I didn't present my reasoning behind it. So, let's trace through the logic of why I don't think it this is a correct assessment of the situation. It is completely true that Scripture does not directly say anything on the matter of whether "gay marriage" is valid. The concept is alien to the inspired authors and claiming that it actually endorses "gay marriage" is an argument from silence because it never said anything on the matter. So why do I believe that it actually rejects the notion?

Simple... The Scripture does have something to say about the necessary components of a "gay marriage." What are the constituent components of a "gay marriage?" First, there is a contractual obligation. Second, marriage involves a sexual relationship.

In the first matter, we have a contractual obligation before God. It says "what God has joined, let no man separate." (Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:9) Yet, the Bible has only ever described marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. "A man shall cleave unto his wife," is the only description of the marriage institute. (Genesis 2:24; Mark 10:7; Matthew 19:5) In terms of logic, this does not say anything in and of itself. It could be taken as a simple failure to mention that marriage can include other arrangements.

Nonetheless, there is the second matter in the consideration of what constitutes a "gay marriage." As everyone is no doubt aware, the Bible is rather explicitly clear about claiming that homosexual acts are sinful. Specifically, it says "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13) and it also says "because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie... God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error." (Romans 1:25, 26-27)

So, if we see that, first, Scripture never describes "gay marriage" and, second, Scripture describes the constituent behavior of "gay marriage" as a fruit of sin, then it is very conceivable that it also considers "gay marriage" to be an invalid concept. If homosexual acts are themselves considered sinful, then would not a "marriage" based upon those acts also be sinful? But, from Christ's own testimony, marriage a holy institution before God.

The conclusion of that would be that if we claim "gay marriage exists," then we claim that sin itself is a holy act. However, what does the Bible say about this? It says "Woe to those who call good evil and evil good." (Isaiah 5:20) In conclusion, it is very easy to derive the reckoning that the Scripture does, in fact, oppose so-called "gay marriage." It is a very logical and simple conclusion which results from the consideration of everything that the Bible has said about marriage.

Quote:

just because a 'majority' ascribe to a certain frame of thinking, (rightly or wrongly) should not be confused with the fact that such majority viewpoint is 'right', 'Godly', 'correct' or 'just'.

I never made this argument. If it had been presented in this way, it would have been a bandwagon fallacy. However, simply because it can be presented in this manner does not mean the conclusion is false. To say that it must be false simply because someone can present a fallacious line of reasoning to reach the conclusion is the "ad logicam" fallacy.

Quote:

Third: Scripture does not define 'male' and 'female'....
Sexuality and Gender is not as black and white as some who ignorantly like to believe.

Actually, I agree with this statement 100%. Without a doubt, "male and female" are on more of a continuum rather than being simple boolean states. There is such a thing as intersexuality as well as varying degrees of genital ambiguity.

Note that I also consider the genetic argument to be only of limited utility for this reason. Genetics is only a useful and convenient test that correlates a large percentage of the time. Nevertheless, natural XY females and XX males do exist as well as the panoply of other chromosomal combinations. In such cases, the more important consideration is a clear phenotypic masculinity or femininity.

Nevertheless, there are clear sides of the spectrum. There is a "strongly male" side and a "strongly female" side of the spectrum. One could make the case that the liminal cases are subject to certain exemptions due to an uncertainty of their gender, and I'm rather neutral to that position. Nevertheless, there is no uncertainty about a whether a clearly male person is male or whether a clearly female person is female. Gender is not a choice, regardless of how many transsexuals want it to be. God does not make mistakes, and He doesn't place "men in womens'" bodies or vice versa.

Quote:

"Marriage", according to the Scripture, is given as a sign of the Union between Christ and His Church...not necessarily as a sign between the union between a male and a female.

Shall we deny that Christ Himself considered it both? Christ Himself quotes that "a man shall leave his family and join unto his wife." He clearly calls Himself the Bridegroom, but He also considers marriage to be a "man joining unto his wife." Does one being true exclude the other? I do not concur.

Quote:

And while marriage in the Scripture is 'traditionally' spoken of as between a man and a woman, it does not follow that only biological females can be considered the "Bride of Christ"...nor that biologic males cannot be part of Christ's Spouse through the Church.

Quote:

the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, (Ephesians 5:23-25)

Also, I quoted that last line so you wouldn't falsely lambast me as a misogynist.

Quote:

Most state laws would consider that a valid 'marriage' occured even if there was no formal marriage ceremony or contract.

I'm actually rather neutral to the idea of "marriage of repute and habit." I do believe that "living together" outside of marriage constitutes a sin, but the reason it is sin is because of the rejection of the Gospel. If the couple is eschewing the wedding because of the "riders" that the state puts on it, then I see no reason that they could not ask for a Church ceremony without a formal "state" marriage. On the other hand, simply "living together" and actively eschewing marriage then is a sign that they are rejecting God, and this would clearly be sin. Nevertheless, I would clearly maintain that the Church is not in a position to recognize unions that are contrary to God's Word... as homosexual ones are.

The state can do whatever it likes, I care not as long as I am free to believe and teach the Word of God faithfully...

Quote:

'Marriage', heterosexual or homosexual, therefore, is an earthly temporal convenience with no Eternal significance...and nothing more.

Christ says, "what God has joined, let no man separate..." It isn't simply a convenience but, as you admitted, also a reflection of God's own relationship with the Church. Christ says that a woman married in this world through levirate marriage is not married to her husband in the next but not because it is simply a "convenience."

Paul also considers marriage a remedy for sinful alternatives, but he does not say it is merely a "temporary convenience." Rather, his concern is that there is a clear benefit for some in being unmarried for the sake of the Gospel. Yet, "if you marry, you do not sin." (1 Corinthians 7:36) Nonetheless, he does not ever consider a case where men can "marry" men or women could "marry" women and, from his other statements (i.e. Romans 1) on the matter, he would probably consider it an abomination of the practice of marriage in the same vein as Leviticus described.

holmegm - re:

|2009-05-16 13:26:55

Entity wrote:

Also, Abraham was before Leviticus, so the prohibition would not have applied to him.

This is a good point.

Obviously, if He wanted a naturally expanding human race, God cannot have banned sibling marriage from the very beginning. There's a transition point somewhere along the way in history.

Only registered users can write comments!

Our valuable member holmegm has been with us since Thursday, 03 April 2008.

Show Other Articles

Russian army introduces the flying Orthodox church... (04 April 2013)
Faith - and a side of fries (31 March 2013)
Resigning From the AARP (22 February 2013)
On Metrorail, pastor tries to raise Christmas spir... (27 December 2012)
Tulsi Gabbard, First Hindu Elected To Congress, Wi... (20 November 2012)

Feeds

Make a Donation

Current Poll

Support Us!

Latest News

Latest Journals

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Popular

Statistics

Who's Online